[ElcinBoris]

Thanks for posting that link! It does look a bit strange on first glance, but if we can get used to the new 2009 wing configs, the shark fins, and the 18 inch wheels, then I think we'd get used to this, as well. From the back it actually looks pretty cool!

[Narkeere]

To me that split rear wing looks fine and funny - wouldn't mind if they tried it in the future. At least would look better than a snowplough front wing, if we are purely concentrating on aesthetics.

[Cucoulkrory]

My reaction to this was two parts;

Good: At least FOTA are considering us, the fans. Increasing the spectacle is a noble aim.

Bad: Another pointless downforce reduction which would probably be ineffective. If we were talking a 50% slash the designers are so clever it would probably end up being no more than 15%. Its all been done before, and thanks to the thread listing all the overtaking stats from '83, we can see how poor they have been in increasing on track action.

[BariGrootrego]

To me that split rear wing looks fine and funny - wouldn't mind if they tried it in the future. At least would look better than a snowplough front wing, if we are purely concentrating on aesthetics.

well, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

aesthetic beauty should be important as well as innovation and engineering and excitement and passion and you get the point.


or is that just me?

[kertionderf]

well, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

aesthetic beauty should be important as well as innovation and engineering and excitement and passion and you get the point.


or is that just me?

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

If they can change the regs, ditch any aero aids except the front wing BELOW the centerline of the axles, minimize the wings, make them single elements and mandate flat bottoms and a nose that isn't stuck in the air, then maybe, just maybe they will reduce the aero to the point where passing might come back in.

I am also of the opinion that they have to mandate these sort of changes right down through GP2 and f3 and the junior formulae to make it all make sense.

Aero dependency is killing all forms of racing if not controlled. IT is why NASCAR did what they did with their COT project, to reduce aero interference..and they are the kings of wanting passing, so you know it HAS to be done if you want passing on track.

[boxcigsnick]

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

If they can change the regs, ditch any aero aids except the front wing BELOW the centerline of the axles, minimize the wings, make them single elements and mandate flat bottoms and a nose that isn't stuck in the air, then maybe, just maybe they will reduce the aero to the point where passing might come back in.

I am also of the opinion that they have to mandate these sort of changes right down through GP2 and f3 and the junior formulae to make it all make sense.

Aero dependency is killing all forms of racing if not controlled. IT is why NASCAR did what they did with their COT project, to reduce aero interference..and they are the kings of wanting passing, so you know it HAS to be done if you want passing on track.

Uh oh! This is gonna turn into a debate about beauty now.

For what its worth I think there were some properly pretty '90's cars. The 1990 and 1995 Ferrari were drop dead sexy! The McLaren MP4/9 (1994 I think) was also a fine looking beast. That said I do agree that the cars of the last 15 years or so have had faces only a mother could love in most cases.

[standaman]

Show me a truly beautiful F1 car. Seriously....I don't think I have seen a really "beautiful" F1 design since the 80's.

The 91 Jordan was a real beauty, maybe the most beautiful F1 car ever.

[Cucoulkrory]

Uh oh! This is gonna turn into a debate about beauty now.

yep beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[gopsbousperie]

It is unlikely we will see any further huge change in the rear wing. It is too important as an advertising medium!
Personally I would like to see wings banned completely but that will never happen. Well probably never.
Remember any areo changes put forth by FOTA, as opposed to the FIA who do not have the expertice, will not be approved until all the teams have has a chance to study them. Every teams' aero crew will have studied them and probably figured out a way to beat any changes before they agree to them.
Cynical? YES!!
And the aero boys and the teams only care about winning not if it is pretty.
Besides the 250F Maserati was the best looking F1 car.

[stuck_in_WA]

Said that banning all wings would be a big improvement many times, only many times to be told NO way, impossible to do....cause where would the ads go....
Type 49 in 1967

[Seerseraxlils]

Mine too There's no point cutting downforce if, as has happened before, aerodynamicists are able to find a way to get it all back and we end up back at square one.

Well there is, if Constructors are really serious about it. Not difficult, really:
1. Reduce the angle or rear wing to horizontal,
2. Eliminate the diffusers
3. Eliminate all the winglets
4. Eliminate the end plates of the front wing, making it a single unit horizontal pure wing.

There you go! how easy was that?

[pimbertiemoft]

There have been some good races this year. Let's not screw up a winning formula.

[stuck_in_WA]

Well there is, if Constructors are really serious about it. Not difficult, really:
1. Reduce the angle or rear wing to horizontal,
2. Eliminate the diffusers
3. Eliminate all the winglets
4. Eliminate the end plates of the front wing, making it a single unit horizontal pure wing.

There you go! how easy was that?

No, ALL WINGS MUST GO TO HEAVEN

Big fan of Mister Jim Hall, former F1 pilot, nice guy, great car builder and designer who raced his own creations, but sometimes I wish he had not done what he done....but if not him, then someone else i guess

[ElcinBoris]

Said that banning all wings would be a big improvement many times, only many times to be told NO way, impossible to do....cause where would the ads go....
Type 49 in 1967

It will take voda ......................... fone to the next level! You think it's bad on this year's shark-finned wing, just you wait!

[Seerseraxlils]

Oh yeah! I almost forgot: bring back wide slicks.

The wings will still work as wings, just not work as deflectors as well.
Let's look at one simple fact: the complicated development of wings, diffusers and countless winglets do not add to the pinnacle of F1 car engineering; it only creates one helluva source of expenditure. AND will this detract from F1 cars? You tell me.

[BariGrootrego]

thread bump, but for a reason, as I have had a random idea that could help following a car become easier:

fitting something small that sucks air in, a bit like an aeroplane jet, but not nearly as powerful, large or flight-creating. Ofcourse, it would have to be a standard thing, all identical fitted to the cars possibly in the air intakes on the front of the sidepods (i'd recommend making the air intakes bigger). too much 'suck' and it could be dangerous with cars getting sucked into each other, not enough and it would be pointless. but a small but good amount could aid slipstreaming and help cars follow each other.

[Ceriopal]

Maybe very high speeds on the straights combined with hard tires is the answer? Less downforce leads to less aerodynamic drag and air disturbance on the trailing car. Very high power leads to high fuel consumption which may be combined with modest fuel tank capacity and more need of refueling. Also very high power combined with hard tires and absence of traction control leads to more difficult driving. Also more need to brake (from high top speeds and hard tires and less downforce) combines well with carbon brakes .
So what do you think? Who wants top speeds of 400 km/h at Monza?

[pimbertiemoft]

thread bump, but for a reason, as I have had a random idea that could help following a car become easier:

fitting something small that sucks air in, a bit like an aeroplane jet, but not nearly as powerful, large or flight-creating.

Do you mean a turbocharger, or do you mean moving the air intake away from the roll bar?

[kertionderf]

No, ALL WINGS MUST GO TO HEAVEN

Big fan of Mister Jim Hall, former F1 pilot, nice guy, great car builder and designer who raced his own creations, but sometimes I wish he had not done what he done....but if not him, then someone else i guess

First wing ( a proper wing ) on a race car was at Indy in 1962. Smokey Yunick put a wing on Jim Rathman's roadster....USAC banned it...but the seed was planted.

I hate the wings really..and all the turbulence off a modern f1 car. It has made passing so hard (in conjunction with carbon fiber brakes) that it has almost made f1 the parade many believe it already is. The only real excitment and unpredictability seems to be when it is raining or just wet...then we see the evident skill.

[gopsbousperie]

As I posted in the Indy car thread hard tires are not the answer!!!!!!
Tire compounding is a tricky business and sometimes companies still get it wrong.
However a hard tire will be as bad or even worse than a too soft tire.
You will get too much sliding resulting in an overheating tire very quickly. Tire stops, flats, and blowouts would be constant. Clag or little rubber balls would be far worse.
Think of the Michelin debacle at Indy. Goodyear also had major problems there with the Taxi Cabs and there have been far too many tire failures this year in Taxi Cab racing.
Tires have to be matched to car performance.